DOCSLIB.ORG

Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child? Corporal Punishment in Schools Around the World

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child? Corporal Punishment in Schools Around the World SPARE THE ROD AND SPOIL THE CHILD? CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS AROUND THE WORLD I. INTRODUCTION Some children mature into adults without ever feeling the pain of physical punishment, others are far too familiar with the bruises and stinging sensations from whips, canes, slaps, and paddles. Physical punishment not only occurs at home behind closed doors, but at school, a place where young minds learn to become a part of an educated, civilized society. Most people dealing with children perceive corporal punishment as either the way to successfully control children or as a last-resort measure.' The main issue that should be considered "in relation to discipline is how the essential processes used can contribute to a high level of intelligent socialization and character development in children."2 Educational systems across the world have been dealing with debates surrounding appropriate types of discipline for teachers and administrators. Arguments in favor of using corporal punishment to correct poor behavior emphasize the belief that fear and pain will promote good conduct by students.3 Arguments against corporal punishment, which are becoming more prevalent in today's society, focus on human dignity, emotional and psychological problems, and the effects upon the learning environment itself.' One major argument against corporal punishment is the failure of school officials to protect children from violence in school; thus denying them their right to be free from all forms of physical or mental violence and the full enjoyment of their right to education.' The right to be free from violence is one of the basic human rights afforded to adults and is a right children should be granted.' 1. See University of Alabama - Birmingham, Department of Education, Corporal Punishment: Children in a Changing Society, at http:lwww.uab.eduleduc/corp.htm (last visited Sept. 2, 2002) [hereinafter Children in a Changing Society]. 2. Id. at 3. 3. See Susan Bitensky, Spare the Rod, Embrace Human Rights: InternationalLaw's Mandate AgainstAll CorporalPunishment of Children, 21 WHI'rER L. REv. 147,148 (1999). This article addresses the human rights issues surrounding corporal punishment. See id. One of these issues is that corporal punishment is intended to cause pain based on the premise that the discomfort will induce the child to alter bad behavior. See id. at 149. 4. See Human Rights Watch: Children's Rights (1999), at http://www.hrw.org/ wr2k/Crd.htm (last visited Nov. 12, 2001) [hereinafter Children'sRights]. 5. See id. 6. See Adah Maurer, PADDLES AWAY: A PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS 133 (1981). The author concludes his work with a Charter of Children's Rights wherein he states: All children born into this world shall be accorded a basic set of human rights. Among these are the right to a welcome, to health, safety, food, physical comfort, IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. [Vol. 13:1 For some children, violence is a regular part of their school day. Teachers use caning, slapping, and whipping "to maintain classroom discipline and to punish children for poor academic performance."' Such children are at risk of being physically hurt and/or psychologically damaged by the use of physical punishment.' In general, children are both physically weaker and psychologically more vulnerable than adults and, therefore, deserve a greater degree of protection.9 Nonetheless, many still hold "the belief that corporal punishment of children has an educative and instructive purpose, without which a child will not be able to learn."'" Numerous international and regional human rights institutions such as: the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have declared that some or all forms of school corporal punishment violate the human rights of children.1 Many nations have either restricted or have placed an explicit ban on corporal punishment in their schools.' 2 Evidence of corporal punishment in schools is apparent from the beginning of formal education. Corporal punishment has traditionally been recognized as a way of controlling behavioral problems in the classroom, and until recently, was accepted in cultures all over the world.'3 Currently, personal care, education, equal protection of the law, freedom to be a child, a gradually increasing autonomy, and respect as a person without regard to race, sex, or economic status of the parents. Id. at 133. Part three further states: SAFETY: All children shall have the right to be protected against abuse whether physical, psychological or sexual, and against neglect, dangerous situations and brutalizing physical punishments at home and while under the care of others at school, recreational facilities and in other institutions temporary or permanent. Id. at 134, 7. See generally Human Rights Watch: Spare the Child, Corporal Punishment in Kenyan Schools (1999), athttp://www.hrw.org/reports/999/kenyafmdex.htm [hereinafter Spare the Child], at pt, I.Summary, Kenyan law permits limited school corporal punishment. See id. Children are physically punished for a number of things from noise making to unsatisfactory academic performance. See id. 8. See Children in a Changing Society, supra note 1. 9. See Spare the Child, supra note 7, at pt. I. Summary. 10. Id. School corporal punishment can be a form of cruel, degrading treatment or punishment, and is akin to the use of beatings to punish detainees in prisons or police stations. See id. In such cases, state agents use violence to discipline and punish people under their supervision and control. See id. The violence is inflicted with the intention of causing physical pain and humiliation. See id. However, today corporal punishment of prisoners is accepted as a human rights violation. See id. 11. See infra Part V. 12. See Spare the Child, supra note 7, at pt. VII. Conclusion. 13. See Robert McCole Wilson, A Study of Attitudes Towards Corporal Punishment as an Educational Procedure From the Earliest Times to the Present (1971) (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Victoria), available at http://www.socsci.kun.nl/ped/whp/histeduc/ 2002] SPARE THE ROD, SPOIL THE CHILD physical punishment in schools is a controversial issue. Many international standards and regulations have expressly addressed the need to rid children of this type of degrading, inhuman treatment. 4 This Note will discuss various issues involving the use of corporal punishment in school systems around the world. Part II discusses definitions of both corporal punishment and discipline, and discusses how they are understood by society. Part III examines the history and development of corporal punishment and looks at how the attitudes surrounding the use of corporal punishment have changed from being considered necessary to correct misbehaviors, to the belief that physical punishment serves no purpose in education. Part IV discusses international standards and regulations on the use of physical punishment of children. These standards pay particular attention to a child's right to human dignity and integrity. Part V addresses the rationales for inflicting physical punishment in schools. Part VI compares the effects the international standards and regulations have on nations. Part VII addresses the consequences of corporal punishment on children, both psychologically and behaviorally, now and in the future. Part VIII presents discipline alternatives to be used in the classroom and legal alternatives for schools all over the world to instill. Fortunately, other methods have been found to be as effective in modifying a child's behavior without the physical and mental harm of corporal punishment. Finally, part IX contains legal recommendations. II. DEFINITIONS In order to understand why there is a growing concern regarding corporal punishment, it is important to define the terms "corporal", "punishment," and "discipline." When broken down individually, the concern surrounding corporal punishment in the school environment becomes apparent. A. CorporalPunishment "Corporal" is defined as being of the body.'5 The word "punishment", a form of the word "punish", is defined as imposing a penalty for an offense or fault.' 6 The term "corporal punishment" involves imposing a penalty for an offense or fault on a part of the body. While the definitions seem clear in wilson/index.html (last visited Oct. 23, 2002) at pt. V11. Discussion. "[Aittitudes towards and use of corporal punishment are an inseparable part of the beliefs and customs of society as a whole." Id. 14. See infra Part V. 15. See THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 195 (3d ed. 1994). 16. See id. at 670. Punish also means to inflict a penalty for or to handle roughly or hurt. See id. IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. [Vol. 13:1 that they refer to the intentional application of physical pain as a method of changing behavior, 7 interpreting and applying the terms can be somewhat complex. This is due in part to the fact that what does and does not constitute a punishment, and the degree of such punishment, lies in the eyes of the beholder. Very often what is severe punishment to one may not be considered punishment by another. Corporal punishment has also been defined as "the infliction of pain or confinement as a penalty for an offense committed by a student."'I8 In light of these definitions, corporal punishment can be carried out in ways other than direct assaults upon children's bodies. There is a mental aspect to the infliction of physical punishment that should not be distinguished from the physical aspects because there is always an emotional or mental component to physical punishment. 9 Corporal punishment may be inflicted by the use of methods such as inflicting electrical shock, confining someone in closed spaces, forcing a student to assume painful bodily postures, or engage in excessive exercise drills.2" B.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Publicationsthe Prohibition of Torture
    THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE: AN INTRODUCTORY GUIDE This is a publication of the Center for Hu- man Rights & Humanitarian Law at American University College of Law — authored by Associate Director of Impact Litigation and the Kovler Project Against Torture Jennifer de Laurentiis and Assistant Director of the Anti- Torture Initiative Andra Nicolescu, and designed by Center Program Coordinator Anastassia Fagan. TABLE OF CONTENTS MESSAGE FROM DEAN CAMILLE A. NELSON.......................................................................................................i MESSAGE FROM CENTER DIRECTOR, PROFESSOR MACARENA SAEZ.........................................................ii INTRODUCTION: WHY DOES THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE AND OTHER ILL-TREATMENT MATTER?...............................................................................................................1 WHAT IS TORTURE?.....................................................................................................................................................2 WHAT ARE “OTHER ACTS OF CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT WHICH DO NOT AMOUNT TO TORTURE?”...................................................5 WHAT IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TORTURE & OTHER ILL-TREATMENT?...........................................6 CAN PRIVATE ACTORS COMMIT “TORTURE”?......................................................................................................7 WHAT DOES THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE REQUIRE?.....................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons
    Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons Action Sheet 8 Liberty and Freedom of Movement Key message The ability to move freely and in safety within one’s country is a basic right as well as a pre-condition for the enjoyment of many other rights. Limitations on freedom of movement can have serious consequences for the lives, health and well-being of individuals and communities. Ensuring freedom of movement thus forms an important part of any protection strategy. 1. What do we mean by the term freedom of movement? Freedom of movement consists of the right and ability to move and choose one’s residence freely and in safety within the territory of the State, regardless of the purpose of the move. It also includes the right to leave any country and to return to one’s own country. It is closely related to the right to liberty and security of person, which guarantees freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, and the right to seek asylum in another country. Taken together these rights mean that all persons, including the internally displaced, have the right to: l Take flight and seek safety in another part of the country (of choice), or to leave the country in order to seek asylum in another country. l Move freely and in safety within the country, including in and out of camps and settlements, regardless of the purpose of the move. l Voluntarily return to the place of origin or relocate to another part of the country. l Not be arbitrarily displaced or forced to return or relocate to another part of the country.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Torture in Great Britain, the United States, and Argentina, 1869-1977
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2014 Holes in the Historical Record: The olitP ics of Torture in Great Britain, the United States, and Argentina, 1869-1977 Lynsey Chediak Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Chediak, Lynsey, "Holes in the Historical Record: The oP litics of Torture in Great Britain, the United States, and Argentina, 1869-1977" (2014). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 875. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/875 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLAREMONT McKENNA COLLEGE Holes in the Historical Record: The Politics of Torture in Great Britain, the United States, and Argentina, 1869-1977 SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR LISA FORMAN CODY AND DEAN NICHOLAS WARNER BY LYNSEY CHEDIAK FOR SENIOR HISTORY THESIS SPRING 2014 April 28, 2014 Acknowledgments This thesis would not have been possible without the brilliant minds of my professors at Claremont McKenna College and the encouragement of my family. First, I would like to thank my reader and advisor, Professor Lisa Forman Cody. From my first day in her class, Professor Cody took what I was trying to say and made my statement, and me, sound ten times smarter. From that moment, I started to truly believe in the power of my ideas and a central tenet that made this thesis possible: there is no wrong answer in history, only evidence. Through countless hours of collaboration, Professor Cody spurred my ideas to levels I never could have imagined and helped me to develop my abilities to think critically and analytically of the historical record and the accuracy of sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Rights Violations As Torture Or Ill-Treatment
    REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AS TORTURE OR ILL-TREATMENT CAT Committee Jurisprudence on Violations of Reproductive Rights The Committee against Torture (CAT Committee) has found that several restrictions on access to reproductive health services and abuses that occur when seeking these services may constitute violations of the Convention against Torture (CAT) because they put women’s health and lives at risk or may otherwise cause them severe physical or mental pain or suffering. For instance, the CAT Committee has found that complete bans on abortion, which exist in only five countries in the world (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Malta, and the Dominican Republic) may constitute torture or ill-treatment on their face, because these laws place women at a risk of preventable maternal mortality. • As the CAT Committee noted in its 2009 review of El Salvador, “the current Criminal Code of 1998 penalizes and punishes with imprisonment for periods ranging from 6 months to 12 years all forms of recourse to voluntary interruption of pregnancy, including in cases of rape or incest, which has resulted in serious harm to women, including death,” recommending that El Salvador take measure to prevent torture and ill-treatment by “providing the required medical treatment, by strengthening family planning programmes and by offering better access to information and reproductive health services, including for adolescents.”1 The CAT Committee has also recommended that abortion be legal in a variety of instances where a pregnancy may cause a woman severe physical or mental suffering. To date, the CAT Committee has found that states have an obligation to ensure access to abortion for women whose health or life is at risk, who are the victims of sexual violence, or who are carrying non- viable fetuses.
    [Show full text]
  • Facilitating Peaceful Protests
    ACADEMY BRIEFING No. 5 Facilitating Peaceful Protests January 2014 Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Geneva Académie de droit international humanitaire et de droits humains à Genève Academ The Academy, a joint centre of ISBN: 978-2-9700866-3-5 © Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, January 2014. Acknowledgements This Academy Briefing was written by Milena Costas Trascasas, Research Fellow, and Stuart Casey-Maslen, Head of Research, at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Geneva Academy). The Academy would like to thank all those who commented on an earlier draft of this briefing, in particular Anja Bienart and Brian Wood of Amnesty International, and Neil Corney of Omega Research Foundation. The Geneva Academy would also like to thank the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAE) for its support to the Academy’s work on facilitating peaceful protests, especially the Human Security Division for its funding of the publication of this Briefing. Editing, design, and layout by Plain Sense, Geneva. Disclaimer This Academy Briefing is the work of the authors. The views expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of the project’s supporters or of anyone who provided input to, or commented on, a draft of this Briefing. The designation of states or territories does not imply any judgement by the Geneva Academy, the DFAE, or any other body or individual, regarding the legal status of such states or territories, or their authorities and institutions, or the delimitation of their boundaries, or the status of any states or territories that border them.
    [Show full text]
  • Torture and the Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Detainees: the Effectiveness and Consequences of 'Enhanced
    TORTURE AND THE CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DE- GRADING TREATMENT OF DETAINEES: THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ‘EN- HANCED’ INTERROGATION HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 2007 Serial No. 110–94 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 38–765 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 15:46 Jul 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\WORK\CONST\110807\38765.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38765 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida LINDA T. SA´ NCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas ANTHONY D.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporal Punishment of Children in Singapore
    Corporal punishment of children in Singapore: Briefing for the Universal Periodic Review, 24th session, 2016 From Dr Sharon Owen, Research and Information Coordinator, Global Initiative, [email protected] The legality and practice of corporal punishment of children violates their fundamental human rights to respect for human dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law. Under international human rights law – the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other human rights instruments – states have an obligation to enact legislation to prohibit corporal punishment in all settings, including the home. In Singapore, corporal punishment of children is lawful, despite repeated recommendations to prohibit it by the Committee on the Rights of the Child and recommendations made during the 1st cycle UPR of Singapore (which the Government rejected). Law reform in 2010/2011 re-authorised corporal punishment in some settings. We hope the Working Group will note with concern the legality of corporal punishment of children in Singapore. We hope states will raise the issue during the review in 2016 and make a specific recommendation that Singapore clearly prohibit all corporal punishment of children in all settings including the home and repeal all legal defences and authorisations for the use of corporal punishment. 1 Review of Singapore in the 1st cycle UPR (2011) and progress since then 1.1 Singapore was reviewed in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review in 2011 (session 11). The issue of corporal punishment of children was raised in the compilation of UN information1 and in the summary of stakeholders’ information.2 The Government rejected recommendations to prohibit corporal punishment of children.3 1.2 Prohibiting and eliminating all corporal punishment of children in all settings including the home – through law reform and other measures – is a key obligation under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other human rights instruments, though it is one frequently evaded by Governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Under International Law Laurent Marcoux, Jr
    Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 5 | Issue 2 Article 3 8-1-1982 Protection from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Under International Law Laurent Marcoux, Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Laurent Marcoux, Jr., Protection from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Under International Law, 5 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 345 (1982), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol5/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Protection from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Under International Law by Laurent Marcoux, Jr. * I. INTRODUCTION Since the adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945, the international community, in recognition of the vital importance of securing respect for human rights and freedom from fear, has developed an impressive body of interna­ tional human rights law. 1 Among the most fundamental of all human rights is the right to personal liberty. One significant dimension of this right is freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.2 In recognition of the right to this freedom, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration), adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, provides in Article 3 that "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person," and in Article 9 that "[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."3 Simi­ larly, Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) states: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of the US Torture Statute to the Physical and Psychological
    Rape as Torture: Application of the U.S. Torture Statute to the Physical and Psychological Consequences of Rape and Sexual Violence on Victims Lindsay Gorman Rape is considered a crime against humanity and an act of torture in international law in large part due to its severe physical and psychological effects on individuals and communities. It is not the purpose of this memorandum to contrast U.S. and international jurisprudence, but rather to explore these physical and psychological effects common to incidents of sexual violence with an eye towards situating this crime within the bounds of the U.S. torture statute, 18 U.S.C. §2340. Elsewhere, we discuss the psychological motivations of the perpetrator of these crimes in the interest of satisfying the statute’s specific intent requirement. Here, our focus is on the victims—and precisely on showing that rape and sexual crimes indisputably meet Title 18’s severity standards. In this section, we will show that rape and sexual crimes: (1) have the potential to cause severe physical pain or suffering; (2) result in prolonged mental harm; and (3) cause this prolonged mental harm via circumstances enumerated under the U.S. torture statute. Points (2) and (3) are sufficient to show that rape and sexual violence amount to the “severe mental pain or suffering” stipulated by the statute. (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions)
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Political Participation in International Law
    The Right to Political Participation In International Law Gregory H. Fox I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 540 I1. THE EMERGING INTERNATIONAL LAW OF PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS ................. 544 A. ParticipatoryRights Before 1948: The Reign of the State Sovereignty Approach ..... 544 B. The Nature and Scope of Post-War Treaty-Based ParticipatoryRights ........... 552 1. The InternationalCovenant on Civil and PoliticalRights ................ 553 a. Non-Discrimination .................................... 553 b. The Right to Take Part in Public Affairs........................ 555 c. Requirements Concerning Elections ........................... 555 2. The FirstProtocol to the European Convention on Human Rights ........... 560 a. Rights Concerning Elections ................................ 561 b. Non-Discrimination .................................... 563 3. The American Convention on Hwnan Rights ........................ 565 4. Other InternationalInstruments Guaranteeing ParticipatoryRights .......... 568 a. The African Charteron Hwnan and Peoples' Rights ................ 568 b. Council on Security and Co-operationin Europe Accords ............. 568 5. Summary of Treaty-Based Norms ................................ 570 II. INTERNATIONAL ELECTION MONITORING: THE ELABORATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS ......................................... 570 A. Election Monitoring Priorto 1945 .................................. 571 B. Monitoring Under the United Nations System .......................... 572 1. The
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights Preamble Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, therefore, The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on the Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman, Cruel, Or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment in Libya’S Draft Constitutional Recommendations
    Comments on the prohibition of torture and inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment or punishment in Libya’s Draft Constitutional Recommendations I. The Prohibition of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Torture is a crime and serious human rights violation that has devastating consequences for its victim, his or her family and whole communities. The practice of torture is in stark contrast to the rule of law. The abhorrent nature of the crime is recognised in constitutions around the world and in international law, under which torture is absolutely prohibited. This absolute prohibition means that there are no exceptions and no justifications for this crime, even in times of emergency. Libya is party to a number of key international and regional treaties that enshrine the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (ill- treatment). These include the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (articles 7 and 10), the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) (article 5), the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (article 37). Under international law, states parties to a treaty are bound to implement its provisions and must ensure that their domestic law complies with their treaty obligations.1 According to article 2 UNCAT ‘Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.’2 Libya therefore has a duty to enshrine the prohibition of torture in its domestic legal order.
    [Show full text]